The FA could address this by docking City points now so the FIFA process is a moot point.
Granted, that’s just biased wishcasting on my part...
Man City banned from Champions League for next two seasons (EDIT:LOL JK)
- Thread starter SoxFanInCali
- Start date
Granted, that’s just biased wishcasting on my part...
No doubt.
While Hicks was a terrible owner, he wasn’t wrong about his valuation of the club. I remember a lot of harping about the debt when the media was talking about a potential sale (and how it didn’t include the mandatory new stadium); but FSG knew revenue increases would dwarf whatever debt service they would have to carry.
They are also one of the few sports investors who see value in improving stadiums vs robbing governments for free land and buildings.
This was coming anyway. This City dynasty has run its course. There was a good chance that Pep was leaving anyway. City's great players are getting toward the end of their prime years. Their defense overall is not of the quality needed for an elite level. They have done little to reload other than Mahrez, that's not enough.
If I'm an Aguero or KDB, I would have had one eye on the exit even before this.
Rodri, Cancelo?!?? With Jesus, Bernardo, Sterling, and Sane all 25 or younger, I'm not sure new attacking options are necessary. I don't think this was the end of a run by any means, although the MF needs some work.
The always excellent SwissRamble with a long thread on the City FFP issues:
View: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1231847021973245952
View: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1231847021973245952
Very illuminating. I didn’t know there was a coefficient for Champions League payments, too. Man, the old guard have baked in their advantages at every turn.
That is fascinating, thanks for posting. So many elements I didn't know existed, like that "UEFA coefficient"-based payment.
The analogues to Milan and PSG are particularly egregious. In my opinion that just means they should have the book thrown at them too, rather than letting Man City off, but the self-dealing examples (he makes another great point with Juventus' shirt sponsor, Jeep, being ultimately owned by Fiat i.e. the Agnelli family) are nuts. I'm not sure the difference between City's Etihad deal and the other dealings where the sponsors and the team are ultimately owned by the same person are that substantial - a difference of degree, perhaps, but not of type.
City is winning this appeal. I don't think that's healthy for the game, and I'm rooting against them in general, but I now buy their narrative that they're getting screwed by UEFA.
The last week or so, I've noticed more people speculating that the ban is likely postponed for this upcoming Champions League season due to the appeal. Most of the comments have been of the source-less variety, i.e. "City's lawyers are going to be able to stop this," but a Manchester United writer from the Athletic did offer some more specific thoughts from a lawyer at a sports law firm. He has no special insight into the case, but offered some general thoughts on how it should work, for what it's worth:
UEFA is also taking on financial risk with the case where if they lose the case they could have to pay City's lawyers, so making a deal (i.e. 1 year ban) may be in the interests of both sides:
A Columnist for the Guardian made this point last week - the regulatory structure breaks down when a state owns a club. Quite simply, in the last instance, UEFA relies on having greater resources than any single club or league in order to enforce its rules. This is not the case when it comes to state owned clubs. And so far, City’s ownership have played within UEFA’s rules. The UAE could find numerous ways to harass or seek to influence UEFA outside the association’s structure....like, say, making an 8-figure donation to FIFA on some paper thin pretext. Indeed, I might argue that City has gotten punished to a much greater extent than PSG for lesser infractions largely because Mansour was not as savvy using his extra-footballing resources to work himself into UEFA’s power structure.
Does UEFA have more resources than the mega clubs (Madrid, United, Barca) or the leagues (EPL has tons of resources)? Not asking snarkily, but rather whether having a state-owned club like PSG or MANC is new from a financial perspective (it's obviously different from an ownership-type perspective).
Second, I don't think FIFA exerts much influence in this instance. FIFA will have some influence on the club calendar, but not much else. Or am I missing something? I don't think any clubs are worried about the FIFA Club World Cup that much.
Lastly, and most importantly IMO, the other mega clubs are likely behind this more than UEFA. They don't like a competitor in MANC that can operate differently and upset their hold on the order. If you have them barking at UEFA and likely funding it surreptitiously to some degree, that's going to give UEFA more incentive to fight.
Well, the UAE holds somewhere over a trillion dollars across its major sovereign wealth funds plus annual income from state-owned businesses. I know the purpose of FFP is to limit a club's expenditures to what they generate in revenue, but Mansour has access to amounts of money that would all but a handful of humans can really fathom. His pockets are much, much deeper than UEFA's to fund an ongoing legal war of attrition, more so than I think any of the privately-owned clubs would tolerate. I could be reading this wrong, but would the Glazers forego their annual dividends for this? Would the presidents of Madrid or Barca be able to stand up and tell their constituencies that they redirected funds from transfers to the legal fight?
Maybe my thought about FIFA influencing UEFA is off. But the UAE as a state can begin investigations and/or petition international organizations to begin investigations into UEFA. That may be a scorched earth approach, but these calculations are different for a state than a private corporation.
And fully agree that the old guard wants UEFA to throw the book at City to basically freeze-in-place the 2011 hierarchy of clubs. But I believe this perceived disrespect is a big part of what is fueling City's desire to fight this to the bitter end.
Good points on all fronts. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Perhaps I've been closely involved with the US litigation system for too long, but I tend to agree that MANC and UEFA likely come to a resolution where MANC accept a 1-year UCL/UEL ban to be served in the '21-'22 season with no transfer ban (or maybe 1 summer window). This allows UEFA to save face, but the question is would MANC settle for it?
Lyon take Juve today in the 'other' UCL matchup. Lyon sit 7th in the Ligue 1 table, but they are 3rd on GD. They put the ball in the net and concede at a very respectable rate. They're 2-1-2 (W-L-D) in their last 5, losing to PSG and drawing with Strasbourg and Amiens. One of their wins was over Marseille in the French Cup. Most of their scoring comes from Moussa Dembele (not that Moussa Dembele). He has 14 goals and has been relied upon with Depay going down. The other stars here are Aouar and Thiago Mendes. From what I can tell the rest of the XI are also solid although not household names. This is a very young squad that got some experience making it to the knockouts last year. They played Barca to a draw at home before getting shellacked 5-1 in the return leg. Ndombele and Mendy were on that team though and Depay was healthy. Nevertheless, I think they will give Juve some problems.
Juve are 3-1-1 in their last 5, losing to Verona and drawing with a revitalized Milan in the Italian Cup. They have a 1-point lead in the suddenly competitive Calcio, with Lazio and Inter fielding very good teams, and Atalanta and Roma playing very well too. In fact, Juve are 4th in GD. They're not scoring or defending at an elite rate. Cristiano is banging in goals though, and he's already over 20 on the season. Dybala and Higuain are chipping in, but this whole squad is about getting the ball to CR7 in a position where he can finish. Betancour is having a good season, Bernadeschi is still skilled, De Ligt is young and very good, and the whole squad has quality and experience.
Madrid-MANC doesn't need a lot of introduction. However, Madrid have lost Hazard for the season and have dropped points in 2 recent La Liga matches, so things are rocking at the Bernabeu at the moment. A bad result today could really throw the capital for a loop ahead of the Clasico this weekend.
Overturned.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53387306
The death blow for FFP? Or at least in situations where the club owners also own their main sponsors?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53387306
The death blow for FFP? Or at least in situations where the club owners also own their main sponsors?
Will have to see the full opinion, but this will change how the mega-clubs approach FFP. It was always a weird case for UEFA to to chase so hard after - there were meaningful changes to FFP within the window of time City were alleged to have breached the rules. It very much seems like UEFA decides that City was going to be the whipping boy despite a questionable case, and in increasingly expect that this is all tied up in Middle Eastern politics. I look at how UEFA rolled over for PSG and the numerous ties the Qataris have to FIFA and UEFA as well as the very strained relationship between the two nations...I have no love for City, but this is a more fair result than the 2 year ban and UEFA does need to got back to the drawing board to rework FFP into something fair and enforceable.
Finally, we can move on from this total witch hunt. Exonerated!!!
Joking aside, this has to be a death knell for FFP right? They don't have the will or the desire to keep the state-owned groups out of the sport so they will just keep finding ways to step right up to and over the line and FIFA and UEFA will try to slap hands and that's as far as they will get.
Joking aside, this has to be a death knell for FFP right? They don't have the will or the desire to keep the state-owned groups out of the sport so they will just keep finding ways to step right up to and over the line and FIFA and UEFA will try to slap hands and that's as far as they will get.
I think the death knell for FFP stuff is way overblown. This was a crap case for a host of reasons and was over a fairly trivial amount of money. City had made enough progress over FFP that it was basically in the rear view mirror and UEFA stepped in to relitigate something. Nothing in this decision negates anything FFP related. It mostly just slapped down the investigators who will probably need to be replaced
The CAS verdict overturning the suspension was by 2 votes to 1, and its reasoning has just been published - David Conn has a good analysis in The Guardian, as usual:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/verdict-that-kept-manchester-city-in-europe-delivers-some-glancing-blows-cas-judgmentIf I'm processing all of this correctly, it turns out that Man City was basically guilty as charged, but gets to stay in the Champions League basically because the statute of limitations had expired.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/verdict-that-kept-manchester-city-in-europe-delivers-some-glancing-blows-cas-judgmentIf I'm processing all of this correctly, it turns out that Man City was basically guilty as charged, but gets to stay in the Champions League basically because the statute of limitations had expired.
I've generally found David Conn to be the most insightful writer in Britain about the financial side of sports - particularly football, and specifically financial corruption/illegality. So when a fan of a particular club tells me that an article by Conn about said club is "garbage" without explaining why, I'm inclined to ask for some additional facts to support such a charge. (That said, I think saying that Man City was "basically guilty as charged" is probably an overstatement of the facts involved - I think it's more correct to say that judgement wasn't passed as such because the statute of limitations had expired. So I should apologize for that.)
Here's the main news article on The Guardian covering the topic about which Conn was writing, btw:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/uefa-claim-against-manchester-city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules
Here's the main news article on The Guardian covering the topic about which Conn was writing, btw:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/uefa-claim-against-manchester-city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules
I am only able to post on mobile so I cannot do a great breakdown and there will be typos.
Conn and a subset of the British press are consumed by this point about the morality of a club owned by a Shiekh to the point that they approach everything related to City and this CAS case through that lens. I’m not interested engaging on the topic of “sports washing” but you generally have a good idea you’re dealing with these types or those who read these types when you read about “nation state run clubs” and that type. An objective assessment of City’s financial position cannot sustain the idea that it is anything but a model financial club in that it is built to be self sustaining and does not rely on the financing of Sheikh Mansour. It is undoubtedly true that Manchester City have very little risk because he owns the club and thus expensive financial mistakes could be better absorbed by hook or by crook but if anything City are at this point maybe the model franchise in football in that it was forced to be built with FFP in mind which means it carries no debt, has loads of bullshit sponsorships which are contractual to ensure sustainable year over year revenue, and does not rely on some of the special exemptions which are created for the older European powers to allow them to essentially use their brand value as a backstop. Going any deeper on this issue would require relitigating a lot of discussion on FFP and it’s purpose or heading into a V&N discussion about why it’s sportswashing for any money to come from Mansour but other clubs are not analyzed through the same lens. If we open up the discussion about where all this sponsorship money comes from we are going to have to face a lot of uncomfortable truths about many clubs in both present day and in history.
But returning to this case specifically, what was actually found is literally the opposite of what you posted. City made arguments that the original agreement between City and UEFA meant this couldn’t be reopened. CAS rejected that argument. City also made arguments that everything was time barred. That was partially true and partially rejected. City also argued that the emails were stolen and this fruit of a poisoned tree. CAS rejected the argument and permitted them as evidence.
But CAS specifically did consider whether UEFA had proven that City had disguised funding and specifically stated that that was not proven. UEFAs case, amazingly, really boiled down to saying that the leaked Der Spiegel emails were sufficient evidence that City had done deceit. There were a few problems with this. First, one of the more damning emails was from a time 2 years before FFP even existed. Secondly, another had been edited by combining separate emails into one to make it seem worse. Thirdly, an amazing amount of this very thin case centered on who “HH” referred to in email shorthand. UEFAs assumption was that HH was Sheikh Mansour but City pointed to a different individual in the country. City presented evidence that it was not Mansour and UEFA had no evidence to the contrary. In the end, the fundamental weakness to UEFAs case was that these are audited companies whose financial records are serious business. UEFA was alleging very serious financial fraud on the part of multiple companies and accounting firms. But they only had a few emails as “proof” and those emails were ambiguous enough (they didn’t say - let’s commit fraud and deceive everyone) that City apparently had people testify that they were being misconstrued. There were more issues here around related parties and more technical FFP things but these issues have always been decided in Citys favor. Also, UEFA has been steadily relaxing those standards because they prohibit growth and have proven inconvenient for clubs who aren’t a fan of being inconvenienced. In any case, in regards to the actual meat of the matter,CAS did not in any way find that City had done anything wrong. City certainly didn’t get off on a technicality, those arguments were largely rejected. UEFA brought a case with almost no supporting evidence and couldn’t prove what they alleged.
The second part of the case and ultimately why City were punished was related to Citys cooperation with UEFAs investigation. City were absolutely incensed at the leaks coming out of UEFA. This was understandable because these leaks were doing enormous reputations damage to the club and the charter of these organizations said everything was supposed to be private for that reason. Especially in a FFP world, these types of leaks are the most effective way to harm a club because it affects the ability sign the lucrative sponsorship deals with the companies that drive the revenue which allow you to spend. During this period, City signed a deal with Silver Lake which could have been scuppered or altered in value due to the possibility that City would be a bad investment if punished. City actually filed a complaint to CAS ahead of this case trying to argue that the leaks were too much of an issue to even allow this case to continue. That was rejected but CAS was very negative about UEFA actions both in that appeal and in this decision. In any event, City essentially chose a strategy that said UEFA is corrupt and cannot be trusted and that instead they’d rather reveal their evidence at CAS. In the end that’s what they did and Citys evidence won but CAS were definitely not fans of this approach and essentially ruled that City were bound to provide materials to UEFAs chamber by rules and this were liable for penalty to discourage such behavior in the future. CAS more or less wrote that if City had provided the information to UEFA then the entire matter could have been settled without wasting CAS time.
The report itself is 93 pages long and were I not on mobile I’d reference actual text more. I’ve read about 70 pages so far so maybe there’s something in the final 20!that I haven’t covered here but I believe the entire tone and substance of the CAS judgement is that this case was a legitimate case for UEFA to bring because the emails had generated a lot of concern but that the actual allegations were not proven and City needed to be more cooperative even if UEFA was a leaking sieve of information
Conn and a subset of the British press are consumed by this point about the morality of a club owned by a Shiekh to the point that they approach everything related to City and this CAS case through that lens. I’m not interested engaging on the topic of “sports washing” but you generally have a good idea you’re dealing with these types or those who read these types when you read about “nation state run clubs” and that type. An objective assessment of City’s financial position cannot sustain the idea that it is anything but a model financial club in that it is built to be self sustaining and does not rely on the financing of Sheikh Mansour. It is undoubtedly true that Manchester City have very little risk because he owns the club and thus expensive financial mistakes could be better absorbed by hook or by crook but if anything City are at this point maybe the model franchise in football in that it was forced to be built with FFP in mind which means it carries no debt, has loads of bullshit sponsorships which are contractual to ensure sustainable year over year revenue, and does not rely on some of the special exemptions which are created for the older European powers to allow them to essentially use their brand value as a backstop. Going any deeper on this issue would require relitigating a lot of discussion on FFP and it’s purpose or heading into a V&N discussion about why it’s sportswashing for any money to come from Mansour but other clubs are not analyzed through the same lens. If we open up the discussion about where all this sponsorship money comes from we are going to have to face a lot of uncomfortable truths about many clubs in both present day and in history.
But returning to this case specifically, what was actually found is literally the opposite of what you posted. City made arguments that the original agreement between City and UEFA meant this couldn’t be reopened. CAS rejected that argument. City also made arguments that everything was time barred. That was partially true and partially rejected. City also argued that the emails were stolen and this fruit of a poisoned tree. CAS rejected the argument and permitted them as evidence.
But CAS specifically did consider whether UEFA had proven that City had disguised funding and specifically stated that that was not proven. UEFAs case, amazingly, really boiled down to saying that the leaked Der Spiegel emails were sufficient evidence that City had done deceit. There were a few problems with this. First, one of the more damning emails was from a time 2 years before FFP even existed. Secondly, another had been edited by combining separate emails into one to make it seem worse. Thirdly, an amazing amount of this very thin case centered on who “HH” referred to in email shorthand. UEFAs assumption was that HH was Sheikh Mansour but City pointed to a different individual in the country. City presented evidence that it was not Mansour and UEFA had no evidence to the contrary. In the end, the fundamental weakness to UEFAs case was that these are audited companies whose financial records are serious business. UEFA was alleging very serious financial fraud on the part of multiple companies and accounting firms. But they only had a few emails as “proof” and those emails were ambiguous enough (they didn’t say - let’s commit fraud and deceive everyone) that City apparently had people testify that they were being misconstrued. There were more issues here around related parties and more technical FFP things but these issues have always been decided in Citys favor. Also, UEFA has been steadily relaxing those standards because they prohibit growth and have proven inconvenient for clubs who aren’t a fan of being inconvenienced. In any case, in regards to the actual meat of the matter,CAS did not in any way find that City had done anything wrong. City certainly didn’t get off on a technicality, those arguments were largely rejected. UEFA brought a case with almost no supporting evidence and couldn’t prove what they alleged.
The second part of the case and ultimately why City were punished was related to Citys cooperation with UEFAs investigation. City were absolutely incensed at the leaks coming out of UEFA. This was understandable because these leaks were doing enormous reputations damage to the club and the charter of these organizations said everything was supposed to be private for that reason. Especially in a FFP world, these types of leaks are the most effective way to harm a club because it affects the ability sign the lucrative sponsorship deals with the companies that drive the revenue which allow you to spend. During this period, City signed a deal with Silver Lake which could have been scuppered or altered in value due to the possibility that City would be a bad investment if punished. City actually filed a complaint to CAS ahead of this case trying to argue that the leaks were too much of an issue to even allow this case to continue. That was rejected but CAS was very negative about UEFA actions both in that appeal and in this decision. In any event, City essentially chose a strategy that said UEFA is corrupt and cannot be trusted and that instead they’d rather reveal their evidence at CAS. In the end that’s what they did and Citys evidence won but CAS were definitely not fans of this approach and essentially ruled that City were bound to provide materials to UEFAs chamber by rules and this were liable for penalty to discourage such behavior in the future. CAS more or less wrote that if City had provided the information to UEFA then the entire matter could have been settled without wasting CAS time.
The report itself is 93 pages long and were I not on mobile I’d reference actual text more. I’ve read about 70 pages so far so maybe there’s something in the final 20!that I haven’t covered here but I believe the entire tone and substance of the CAS judgement is that this case was a legitimate case for UEFA to bring because the emails had generated a lot of concern but that the actual allegations were not proven and City needed to be more cooperative even if UEFA was a leaking sieve of information
More leaks in Der Spiegel purporting to show a city cheated. It’s clear to me that these are coming from UEFA in an ongoing effort to damage City & ennoble their cause. But this has gone so far beyond regulating business and into a nasty, petulant grudge match.
It’s impossible to know but I think you have that backwards. I’m sure some people at UEFA are angry but there’s very little to gain here and especially in this manner. The ridiculousness of opening yet another investigation into City would probably shift some fans onto the side of City so what would be the point of continuing to gun up controversy? I’m not even sure UEFA really wanted the case in the first place but may have more been forced into it by the established clubs constant threat of a breakaway league.
In my view this is Der Spiegel trying to save face. The CAS case certainly illuminated how deceptive they were in reporting this story in the first place. Combining emails to make it look worse and removing people who were CCd and dates from emails which predated FFP were quite dubious exercises of editorial discretion. They certainly seemed to have tried to have tried to frame this story in a certain way and hopefully people are a bit more skeptical of them now.
If not just DS I generally always think nothing football news related happens in Germany without Bayern driving it. Rummenigge already ran his mouth about City after the decision and that’s certainly the kind of club which would do this kind of thing. This paragraph, I would admit, is more conspiracy theory butit is hard as a City fan at this point not to be a bit paranoid. Especiallyafter that letter from all the PL clubs trying to bury City. I understand why some of them did it as a pure competitive opportunity but again there’s a pattern of clubs in England and abroad working behind the scenes tI really turn the screw and I find that part a bit distasteful. I have said many times that I’m sure that City have pushed boundaries accounting wise and may even have crossed them slightly—but I do not for a second think they are unique in that regard among European elite and in general City have not been the team pushing player prices to new heights. The legitimate fear was that Etihad would sponsor City for 70 billion dollars but Citys deals have generally been undervalued relative to performance
In my view this is Der Spiegel trying to save face. The CAS case certainly illuminated how deceptive they were in reporting this story in the first place. Combining emails to make it look worse and removing people who were CCd and dates from emails which predated FFP were quite dubious exercises of editorial discretion. They certainly seemed to have tried to have tried to frame this story in a certain way and hopefully people are a bit more skeptical of them now.
If not just DS I generally always think nothing football news related happens in Germany without Bayern driving it. Rummenigge already ran his mouth about City after the decision and that’s certainly the kind of club which would do this kind of thing. This paragraph, I would admit, is more conspiracy theory butit is hard as a City fan at this point not to be a bit paranoid. Especiallyafter that letter from all the PL clubs trying to bury City. I understand why some of them did it as a pure competitive opportunity but again there’s a pattern of clubs in England and abroad working behind the scenes tI really turn the screw and I find that part a bit distasteful. I have said many times that I’m sure that City have pushed boundaries accounting wise and may even have crossed them slightly—but I do not for a second think they are unique in that regard among European elite and in general City have not been the team pushing player prices to new heights. The legitimate fear was that Etihad would sponsor City for 70 billion dollars but Citys deals have generally been undervalued relative to performance